Not quite correct.
While the top tax bracket is 38%, once you
phase out personal exemptions, its more like 42%. So not far off of 50% already.
If you want to avoid taxes, consider annuites,
trusts, and even tax free bonds.
2007-04-27 08:39:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by jeffpa 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Taxes have not been over 50% for a long time (since before Reagan, I think).
I don't think it will happen.
But they will raise taxes--first by allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire, second by their own devices.
******************
Edit:
The answer below me is a bit strange. If you never claim deductions for anything, if your AGI = your total income, your top bracket will still be 35%. You somehow forget to take exclusions for personal and family deductions, you still only pay 35% from the tax tables.
There hasn't been a 38.6% bracket since 2002, and the corporate brackets of 38% and 39% are "hump" brackets. Their purpose is to level out lower taxes paid on lower income amounts. Even corporations will never pay more than 35% overall.
*********************
Edit (again--don't you love it when answers grow to unending responses to other answers?):
Bostonian neglected to mention that the US was entering a recession in the year Bush took office. It ended the expansion of the Reagan/Bush/Clinton era, and was likely a result of the Clinton tax increases.
Bush reduced tax brackets and capital gains, and the economy lurched OUT of the recession and grew above and beyond the hits we took on 9-11, Florida hurricanes, hurricane Katrina and rising gas prices. Clinton had no natural disasters or wars to deal with, gas prices were $2/gallon only in California, and yet the economy slowed while he was in office.
Bostonian has also neglected to mention that the tax cuts have resulted in the highest tax REVENUES in US history, and the budget deficit is closing DESPITE the war and disaster relief spending. Annual revenues in 2006 were about $700 million higher than in 2000, likely the result of low unemployment--more people paying into the Fed.
2007-04-27 08:10:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, Bill raised taxes several times, yet the economy grew at the greatest rate in history and the welfare rolls DROPPED to the lowest levels in history AND he delivered a SURPLUS.
The current occupant of the WH spent that surplus in the first month in office and has run the deficit to the highest level in history -- higher than the deficits of all previous administrations COMBINED. Anyone who thinks that we can fix that without tax increases is kidding themselves.
My money is already going to pay for my health insurance. Socialized medicine may not be the answer, but mandatory health insurance may well be. Either way, it's money out of my pocket whether it's paid to the government (less efficient for some things such as healthcare) or an insurance company (whose motivation isn't my health but its own bottom line). Which is the lesser of the two evils?
2007-04-27 08:47:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bostonian In MO 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
Unhealthy Behavior Tax (UBT) tax on fast food, cigarettes, alcohol (except red wine) soda, speeding tickets, ski's, no tax on healthy behavior, ie: bottled water, fruits and veggies, lean meat and chicken, tax break for health club membership. All gwb did was shift the taxes locally instead of federal. He thinks he cut taxes, but I pay more now then ever, real estate, sales, gas. All the profits him and cheney made the oil companies could fund healthcare for everyone.
2007-04-27 09:07:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by World Peace Now 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm supporting the FairTax plan. It involves repealing the entire tax code AND the 16th amendment and replacing ALL Federal taxes with a sales tax.
Shibboleth: Bostonianinmo did NOT forget to mention anything. He doesn't BELIEVE what you pointed out. You are correct, but you will never convince him of the facts.
2007-04-27 14:27:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
0⤊
0⤋